MASONPRO, INC. v. MASON PRO ONE, LLC
2:21-cv-01941
D.N.J.Jan 7, 2022Background
- Plaintiff MasonPro, Inc. (Michigan corp.) owns registered "MasonPro" trademarks used for masonry-related goods/services for ~30 years.
- Defendant Mason Pro One, LLC (New Jersey LLC) used the name "Mason Pro" to market masonry goods/services in New Jersey.
- Plaintiff sued under the Lanham Act on February 5, 2021, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- After defendant attempted to avoid service, the court authorized alternative service; defendant was served on June 1, 2021, but did not answer. Clerk entered default on July 12, 2021; plaintiff moved for default judgment on September 17, 2021.
- The complaint included USPTO registration certificates for plaintiff’s marks and printouts of defendant’s website showing use of "Mason Pro."
- The court found the prerequisites for default judgment satisfied, concluded the Lanham Act claim was established, and entered default judgment with a permanent injunction against further infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is appropriate (service & default) | Proper service via court-approved alternative; defendant failed to respond; Gold Kist factors favor default | No response / failed to appear | Default judgment granted — prerequisites and factors satisfied |
| Whether plaintiff states a Lanham Act claim (ownership, validity) | Owns registered MasonPro marks; registrations valid and cover defendant’s goods/services | No response | Registrations establish ownership and validity; elements 1–2 satisfied |
| Whether defendant’s use is likely to cause consumer confusion | Defendant used "Mason Pro" for masonry services; mark similarity likely to confuse targeted consumers; website evidence | No response | Court found likelihood of confusion plausible (similarity dispositive given default) |
| Whether permanent injunctive relief is warranted | Infringement causes irreparable harm; legal remedies inadequate; balance of hardships and public interest favor injunction | No response | Permanent injunction granted under equitable factors and 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (district court’s discretion to enter default judgment)
- Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1985) (service and default prerequisites)
- Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1987) (factors for entry of default judgment)
- A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000) (Lanham Act infringement elements; likelihood-of-confusion analysis)
- Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983) (Lapp factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Pappan Enters., Inc. v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 143 F.3d 800 (3d Cir. 1998) (infringement equated with irreparable harm)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (four equitable factors governing injunctive relief)
- S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1992) (public interest as preventing consumer confusion)